Having more false positives than true positives only works if the people taking the test either don't understand statistics or don't know the test accuracy. I for one would probably ignore a positive result if I thought my chances of true positive were 0.001 and my chances of a false positive were 0.5.
How about we try this: when reporting "facts", how about we try noting that there is uncertainty involved? I know the average Joe and Jane public aren't intellectuals, and it is often how stupid people can be, but on the other hand I think it is also fair to say that we underestimate people.
I think we should at least consider trying this (noting uncertainty in reporting) - it's times like this where we need more ideas and more thinking, not less.
So, We lie to people and tell em they are infected. And then we are angry that FOX or the governor of WV are going to expose our scam?
What did I miss...